Commentaries on the Law of Negligence in All Relations: (including a Complete Revision of the Author's Previous Works on the Same Subject)Bowen-Merrill Company, 1914 |
Contents
| 1 | |
| 9 | |
| 16 | |
| 31 | |
| 47 | |
| 53 | |
| 60 | |
| 76 | |
| 606 | |
| 621 | |
| 634 | |
| 644 | |
| 657 | |
| 672 | |
| 697 | |
| 702 | |
| 88 | |
| 96 | |
| 103 | |
| 110 | |
| 131 | |
| 137 | |
| 146 | |
| 163 | |
| 180 | |
| 190 | |
| 206 | |
| 223 | |
| 224 | |
| 229 | |
| 232 | |
| 245 | |
| 258 | |
| 278 | |
| 287 | |
| 295 | |
| 317 | |
| 324 | |
| 343 | |
| 350 | |
| 356 | |
| 363 | |
| 380 | |
| 387 | |
| 393 | |
| 410 | |
| 436 | |
| 437 | |
| 447 | |
| 489 | |
| 492 | |
| 515 | |
| 551 | |
| 557 | |
| 581 | |
| 709 | |
| 725 | |
| 731 | |
| 741 | |
| 752 | |
| 765 | |
| 771 | |
| 776 | |
| 795 | |
| 803 | |
| 813 | |
| 826 | |
| 831 | |
| 853 | |
| 866 | |
| 874 | |
| 877 | |
| 883 | |
| 889 | |
| 895 | |
| 920 | |
| 959 | |
| 986 | |
| 993 | |
| 1003 | |
| 1015 | |
| 1023 | |
| 1045 | |
| 1066 | |
| 1071 | |
| 1072 | |
| 1076 | |
| 1087 | |
| 1091 | |
| 1139 | |
| 1150 | |
| 1153 | |
Common terms and phrases
Atchison &c Atlantic Coast Line Baltimore &c Boston &c Brooklyn Heights carrier Central of Georgia Chesapeake &c Chicago &c Chicago City Cincinnati &c City &c Cleveland &c Coal &c Colo Conn contributory negligence crossing damages danger duty employé exercise gence Gulf &c highway Houston &c Illinois Cent Iowa jury Kans Kansas City liable for injuries Light &c Louis &c Louis Southwestern Louis Trans Louisville &c Lumber Main section cited Main section quoted Mass Metropolitan St Minn Minneapolis &c Misc Missouri &c Mont Nebr negligence per se Norfolk &c Northern Pac Okla owner passenger Pennsylvania person Philadelphia &c plaintiff proximate cause railroad company reasonable Seaboard Air Line servant Smith Southern statute street car Texas &c ticket Trac track train trespasser Utah Wabash Wash Western Union Western Union Tel York &c York Cent
Popular passages
Page 24 - It is admitted that the rule is difficult of application. But it is generally held, that, in order to warrant a finding that negligence, or an act not amounting to wanton wrong, is the proximate cause of an injury, it must appear that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence or wrongful act, and that it ought to have been foreseen in the light of the attending circumstances.
Page 54 - Act to recover damages for personal injuries to an employee or where such injuries have resulted in his death, the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee...
Page 23 - The proximate cause of an injury is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
Page 444 - It is a rule, as applicable to all oases of injury about stations, that railway companies are bound to keep in a safe condition all portions of their platforms, and approaches thereto, to which the public do or would naturally resort, and all portions of their station grounds reasonably near to the platforms, where passengers, or those who have purchased tickets with a view to take passage on their cars, would naturally or ordinarily be likely to go.
Page 316 - There, although without the negligence of the plaintiff the accident could not have happened, the negligence is not supposed to have contributed to the accident within the rule upon this subject : and, if the accident might have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and skill on the part of the defendant, to his gross negligence it is entirely ascribed, he and he only proximately causing the loss.
Page 457 - The presumption of negligence suggested does not arise from the abstract fact of an accident to a passenger, but arises from a consideration of the nature and quality of the accident; and it must appear that it was such an accident as does not, in the usual course of things, happen to passengers when due care is exercised on the part of the carrier. 3 Thomp. Neg. § 3484 ; Richmond R. & Electric Co. v. Hudgins, 100 Va. 409, 41 SE 736.
Page 47 - The law has so high a regard for human life that it will not impute negligence to an effort to preserve it, unless made under such circumstances as to constitute rashness in the judgment of prudent persons.
Page 463 - On the other hand, where the accident arises from a hidden and internal defect, which a careful and thorough examination would not disclose, and which could not be guarded against by the exercise of a sound judgment and the most vigilant oversight, then the proprietor is not liable for the injury, but the misfortune must be borne by the sufferer, as one of that class of injuries for which the law can afford no redress in the form of a pecuniary recompense.
Page 8 - In every case involving actionable negligence, there are necessarily three elements essential to Its existence: (1) The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains; (2) a failure by the defendant to perform that duty ; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff from such failure of the defendant.
Page 452 - It is the duty of the defendant, as a carrier of passengers for hire, to use the highest degree of care consistent with the nature and extent of its business, not only to provide safe and suitable vehicles for their carriage, but to maintain all such reasonable arrangements for control and supervision both of the passengers and of its own servants as prudence would dictate to guard its passengers, while they occupy that relation, against all dangers that are naturally and according to the usual course...